Thursday's Random Thoughts

Cultural Archiving and Thermal Limits.

We're keeping too much stuff online. With every photo you upload to Instagram, every blog post about global warming or every web-video appeal, a piece of glacier disappears.

That's the connection we need to make. Talking about cars or industry (the pollution we can 'see') allows us to project participation in 'the problem' on others.

Is it possible one's internet usage can use as much energy as owning an automobile? (has anyone done this math?)

Well, yes. From a recent NYT article:

Worldwide, the digital warehouses use about 30 billion watts of electricity, roughly equivalent to the output of 30 nuclear power plants, according to estimates industry experts compiled for The Times. Data centers in the United States account for one-quarter to one-third of that load, the estimates show.

“It’s staggering for most people, even people in the industry, to understand the numbers, the sheer size of these systems,” said Peter Gross, who helped design hundreds of data centers. “A single data center can take more power than a medium-size town." 

Emphasis mine.

That's 30 nuke plants today. What of next year? Moore's law says we're going to keep storing even more data, so we're going to be pulling even more energy off the grid.

How do we stem the pace of global warming AND keep our blogs?

Short of denial (who's power I won't underestimate), something's got to be done.

Someone has to pay.

I don't know enough about carbon offsets to know if they'll address this because they seem (in my current understanding) targeted at energy producers and not energy consumers. Am I wrong about that?

-------

Point-of-Sale Systems and Time Taxes

I call it "Prompt Creep." It's a spin on the concept of "Feature Creep" - the idea that systems will tend toward complexity. Practically every POS system I come across now prompts me for:

• a "customer loyalty" or "club" or some other membership card or identification
• whether I prefer a credit or debit transaction. My choice has some consequence, as it can be a net gain or loss for the vendor (who I may be wishing to support) depending on the relationship they have with their own bank.
• I am prompted for a PIN or signature
• I am asked if I want any cash back (every cash register is an ATM, too!)
• Prompted for a donation (at many grocery stores)
• Prompted for receipt options
• Printed Reciept
• Email 
• Txt Message
• If you select this option, you are prompted to sign up for a store membership and accept advertising (ahem, "PROMOTIONAL") messages sent to your mobile device
• No Receipt (???)
• Finally prompted to confirm the total (do I carry a calculator with me?)

This part of a commercial transaction is downright inhuman. As a customer, I have to focus my attention on a keypad and screen (I'm not acknowleging another human being) and the clerk has to focus on their screen. If there is a line, there is added pressure to make the transaction occur as hurriedly as possible.

So all of these prompts, the pressure of a building line, and the last (and arguably MOST stressful part of a POS experience) is the waiting for "APPROVAL". The actual system of ATM/Credit is voodoo to most people, but the neurological effects of shame and embarrassment when one's transaction reads "DECLINED" are very, very real. That few seconds of waiting... "Am I about to experience public shame and embarassment?" causes a momentary elevation of adrenalin.

(read Google Scholar articles on "effects of adrenaline neural memory")

Of the contributing factors to this stress is the combination of decision fatigue and a sense of frustration related to the sense you're time is not being respected. Instead, you and I are being both figuratively and literally, taxed.

So why not use cash?

I want to do more thinking on this, but I have a sense about a collision of a few forces: a cultural association between cash and criminal activity, an economy where many single items can exceed common denominations, that most cash dispensing systems use only $20 bills, when $5's are much more useful (creating a problem for vendors when they run out of smaller bills for change).

That's a dense set of elements.  And while it may seem trivial at an individual level, every time you prompt someone, you're adding as many as five seconds to the transaction. Scaled over just one local grocery operation (250k customers daily) that's a lot of people standing in line (lost productivity = regressive tax).

Thursday's Random Thoughts

Facebook's new "Promote This" feature:
"Traditional" business interests are reacting to Facebook's new promotional opportunities as if its a death knell (see: Mark Cuban, Mavericks). The assumption implicit in their thinking is they should have a monopoly on speech.

I don't know how long Facebook's new thing will last, but opening up the ability for anyone to "promote" a post for a few bucks (or a lot, depending) kind of changes the degree of access. It's not really revolutionary, but it is slightly more democratic (easy, one-click access).

In the next election cycle, proponents will mobilize their own voices more directly by sponsoring their own (or candidate's) posts. Facebook will make a lot of money.
-----

This is the best summary of the media frenzy over Gen Patreus having a personal life.
------
Hotels are hiding fees in your bill to suck a few extra bucks from your wallet. 
------
Voters raised taxes all over the country.
------
John Gordon at Kateva on the connection between corporate structure and Soviet-style central planning:

Central planning triumphs because, even if we ignore regulatory capture and senatorial acquisition, corporations are only capitalist on the outside of the cell membrane. Inside the corporation there are no contracts, no currencies, and no markets. Inside the corporation, we have the hallmarks of Soviet central planning - goals and quotas and commissars and imaginary numbers and dictates from the central commission.

-----
I was wrong about Prop 37 passing by a wide margin. Marion thinks this speaks to the power of money in political advertising, but I'm not so sure. The big money was right on this one, but for different reasons. I still thing GMO labeling is coming, but it will be in a more marketable form. Look to the DeBeers Diamonds model (use long-term marketing to create a perception that GMO is a premium product.)
------
John Gordon (again!) predicts the demise of climate change as a party platform in GOP politics within the year. Do you agree?
------
How corporations use rent-seeking to extract value from economic activities they don't support:

Here's another good example that affects Internet policy. We hear a lot about "free content" on the Web, and the idea that users are getting something for nothing. "They don't want to pay for their content." And yet, most people access the Internet by paying an Internet service provider $60, $70, $80 a month. You think of a company like Comcast. The user pays them $80 a month and watches television, and we say, "Oh. They're paying for content." They pay $80 a month for access to the Internet and we say, "Oh. They're getting their content for free." Something is clearly wrong with that picture!

In fact, the reverse is actually true. The free rider is Comcast. If people watch television, the Cable company has to pay money downstream to content providers. When people watch YouTube, or use Facebook or Twitter, or just surf the Web, they pay nothing for content. So it's not users who are getting the free ride, it's these big companies. That's just one of many implications that come to light when you start thinking about the Clothesline Paradox.

What are you thinking about today?

Thursday Thoughts

 Random Thoughts on a Thursday:

Why do all the good ideas happen in the shower? My hypothesis: it has something to do with neural stimulation via water hitting the skin. That and your psychological guard is down.

The view that tablets (particularly iPads) represent a 'next generation' of devices is a marketing framing that has become the dominant way of thinking. But I think tablets are still version 1.0 tech.
They are merely a convergence of two media approaches: print and video (it's a paper movie screen!) The most fundamental premise of the iPad's (and by proxy all tablets) design is that people are going to consume media on these devices. This is still tech 1.0 thinking. Tech 2.0 is all about data and analysis.

Musicians need to think about car sales, but not in the way we have been - we have to think about the lot size as analogous to an individual's available time. There's only so many cars (songs) you can
put on the lot. But what do you do with a massive oversupply of cars and customers that are still incredibly particular about what they want, and most cars are actually crap?

I want to know what the price of Coca-Cola says about a business's operating model.
Why is 64oz of Coke $0.99 at Circle K, but right next door at the ice cream shop, a "large" Coke is a $1.29 and contains roughly 10-12oz of soda (depending on the proportion of ice in the served beverage.)

The "Information wants to be free" founding ethos of the internet has scaled past relevance. It's only someone else's data that you want to be free - *yours* is worth a premium, right?

There is no such thing as "online anonymity" - your name/face and web history are all compiled at some corporate marketing headquarters. YouPorn and your bank use the same tech to track users - they know it's you.

Science and tech are taking a lot of the mystery out of the world, and so many people are afraid of the new mysteries. Most Americans need a refresher biology course in the worst way.

Everyone thinks the next president will be Republican Jeb Bush. I think it will be Schwarzenegger.

What are you thinking about today?

More Thinking On Prop 37: GMO's, Global Warming, Poverty, and Denial

Riffing on this Metafilter comment:

My primary concern is maintaining a climate compatible with feeding everyone. Famines today are avoidable tragedies. There is enough food to keep everyone on Earth fed, just barely. We have turned a huge proportion of the world's biosphere over to making food for people. There is a good argument to be made that even if the climate was in a stable state that we are extracting so much from the earth to feed us that we are drawing down the productive capacity available to us. We already fix 200% more nitrogen from the Haber-Bosch process than the entire terrestrial biosphere does.

Can we continue to feed a growing population under these constraints, along with the pressures of climate change? I doubt it's possible if we don't immediately start to decarbonize our economies. An erratic jet stream causing devastating droughts and floods all over the northern hemisphere is not good for agriculture. Looked at the price of corn lately? 4ºC warming or more, which is what we are on track for, takes us way, way outside the stable climate that has existed for the entire history of agriculture. Can we adapt without billions starving? I sure as hell hope so, but perhaps we'd be better off avoiding that particular experiment, no? (emphasis mine).

 Many anti-GMO's frame gene tech as a kind of Great Human Experiment, invoking memes like The Precautionary Principle and "lack of long-term studies."

In the same way I think GMO vs. Organic is a false-dilemma, I'm coming around to consider the experiment frame as a way of deflecting realities of global warming, the real experiment, IMHO. If we're going to continue to feed humans on this planet in the mid-term, we're going to need crops that thrive in warmer temperatures. And more water. What happens if the North American Continent can only produce 15% of what it does now?

The GMO vs. Organic is really just a twist on the older Goliath vs. David: GMO is a symbol for powerful and parasitic corporatism, and Organic is a symbol of goodness and humility, and all summary qualities not associated with corporatism. (It's a classic Good v Evil framing, and I believe its simplicity will contribute to its passing.)

Another element missing from the Prop37 fracas is any discussion of farming practices, specifically the endemic exploitation of migrant workers, and the resulting poverty that surrounds much of modern food production. I have previously discussed themes of social privilege that pervade much of the language used by proponents of organic products.

For a little more perspective on this, we turn to Matthew Desmond, who writes:

[most discussions pivot] upon the concept of a lack. Structural accounts emphasize the inner city’s lack of jobs, social services, or organizations [read: farmer's markets, CSA's, community gardens, etc]. Cultural accounts emphasize the inner city’s lack of role models, custodial fathers, and middle-class values. Although usually pitted against one another, structural and cultural approaches share a common outlook: that the inner city is a void, a needy thing, and, like supplies lowered into the leper colony, that its problems can be solved by filing the void with more stuff: e.g., more jobs, more education, more social services.

It seems clear that Prop37 addresses a specific psychological need: a "choice" to publicly display a set of (good!) cultural attributes without having to acknowledge the inherent exploitation. In this view Prop37 comes to represent a kind of Patriarchal Bargain: organic advocates can claim to be wrestling the system but in reality they are agreeing to leave it completely intact.

Desmond continues:

[to elevate] the concept of exploitation to a more central position within the sociology of inequality. For who could argue that the urban poor today are not just as exploited as they were in generations past, what with the acceleration of rents throughout the housing crisis; the proliferation of pawn shops, the number of which doubled in the 1990s; the emergence of the payday lending industry, boasting of more stores across the U.S. than McDonald’s restaurants and netting upwards of $7 billion annually in fees; and the colossal expansion of the subprime lending industry, which was generating upwards of $100 billion in annual revenues at the peak of the housing bubble? And yet conventional accounts of inequality, structural and cultural approaches alike, continue to view urban poverty strictly as the result of some inanity. How different our theories would be — and with them our policy prescriptions — if we began viewing poverty as the result of a kind of robbery.

The total absence of these themes in the Prop37 discussion leads me to conclude this measure serves only a marketing purpose, but not the marketing of products to consumers. Instead, its for the marketing of ourselves to each other.

Prop37: What's Underneath

(Note: fast dump - forgive my grammar.
Note: this is not an indictment of GMO labeling nor a dismissal of genuine skepticism re: applied genomics. This is an exploration of themes and frameworks invoked by antiGMO's to describe/convert others to their worldview.)


A few consistent themes emerge when dealing with anti-GMO's:

1. Patriarchy: corporatism (and by proxy anything its connected to, ie gene research) is associated as an extension of European Colonialism, specifically WAP (White Anglo Protestants). Rape frameworks are associated solely with WAP/corporate activities - anti GMO's do not level such accusations against indigenous populations.
2. Naturalism: In rejecting patriarchy and its associations, WAP actions are categorized as acting upon Nature instead of within it. Nature is seen as a benevolent force that is being interfered with by humans.
3. Mysticism: Mystical/magical properties are associated with indigenous people, but only under certain criteria. Native Americans (ie. Hopi[1]) are magical/mystical, but Irish[2] are not.
4. Social Privilege: anti-GMO/organic lifestyles are often accompanied by language and images of social privilege: 
1. "Organic food consumption is one of several new trends in eating read as active opposition to industrialized food provision. While fast food consumption is characterized by compulsive gluttony, manifest in fat bodies, alternative consumption practices are seen to be driven by conscious reflexivity, such that consumers monitor, reflect upon and adapt their personal conduct in light of its perceived consequences." [3]
2. "Namely, the alternative movement has been animated by a set of discourses that
   derive from whitened cultural histories, which, in turn, have inflected the spaces of alternative food provision. Many in the movement seem oblivious to the racial character of these discourses – if anything they presume them to be universal – and so are ignorant of the way in which employment of these discourses might constitute another kind of exclusionary practice. Among them I would include the idea of bringing this good food to others. " [4]

 This goes to the heart of my objections re: Prop37, the GMO labeling requirement.

Prop37 proponents will invoke all these themes, but framed as 'choice.' But this is silly - you already know what's GMO vs. heritage. They want a warning label[5]. Full stop.

And they want it because then they have permission to judge you in public: "Oh, you're buying GMO? You must be ignorant." They want to shame you into eating different. Specifically, they want to shame you for contributing to the corporate control (read: WAP) of food and have you embrace a 'natural' way of life. Just like them.

[EDIT: This is a really good article summarizing Prop 37.]






Notes and Citations:
[1] It is a common assertion among anti-GMO that Native American corn varieties were superior to modern ones for reasons usually attributed to magical properties (ie. 'they lived in harmony.')

[2] Anti-GMO's will infer the Irish Potato Famine was the result of monoculture choices (this is a punishment framework solely associated with WAP cultures)

[3] Julie Guthman, Social and Cultural Geography

[4] Julie Guthman, Bringing Good Food to Others

[5] Prop 37's #1 funder is certified quack "Dr" Joseph Mercola - this is not about consumer 'choice' or anything real. This man is on a religious crusade to ban all GMO's

The "Organic" Label Makes You Fat

When a food is described as organic, perceivers erroneously infer that it is lower-calorie and that it can be eaten more frequently (Study 1). These benevolent impressions of organic foods are likely to influence consumption decisions and to have downstream implications for other health-related choices. We observed these implications when participants read about a person with a weight-loss goal who was considering skipping her planned physical exercise: participants considered forgoing exercise to be more acceptable when the person had just chosen an organic rather than a conventional dessert (Study 2). In combination, these findings suggest that “organic” claims not only foster lower calorie estimates and higher consumption intentions, but that they might also convey that one has already made progress toward one’s weight-loss goal, thus undermining subsequent goal-consistent action (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005).

 Newsflash: Marketers use tricks to get you to buy things. And a lot of us are suckers.

Related: That "study" claiming Monsanto's GM maize causes cancer turned out to be not only total bullshit, but lying manipulative "I have a book coming out" bullshit.

He'll be a millionaire.

Control

Maybe I'm old.

I remember a time when web developers (today's equivalent of app devs) took great pains to make their sites work - translation: when I clicked on something, it did what I clicked on.

"Does what it says on the box" as the meme goes.

Increasingly, I'm having experiences with software/apps that don't "do" what I ask/need. The worst offense is forced-updates. In my time-sensitive universe, when I press the "find my route" button, that's what I expect to happen.

Instead I'm confronted with options regarding an application update (mandatory). And licensing terms. And additional downloading of 'assets.' Suddenly, a printed Thomas guide has a new value proposition.

Forced updates are a time-tax: I'm suddenly waiting while my phone ignores all pleas to stop the update.

The PC is worse because so many updates ask me to reboot afterwards - its so invasive.

I am losing control of my own tools.

But they're not mine, are they? iTunes, my mp3 encoder, belongs to Apple. My phone belongs to Verizon/Google. My car belongs to a bank. I have a landlord. My favorite computer game? Owned by Blizzard. Printer drivers? HP.

If you don't own it, you can't control it.

We see this creep everywhere - from popular TV series to movies to our own devices: Doesn't do what it says on the box.

Stiffed

You can do everything right and still get shafted. At the end of the day, you can only do your best - the rest is up to the Universe. It's not a guarantee - only a heightened probability.

That's the truth.

But we still can't talk about that in this country. You'd rather blather on about karma and your dedication to the cult of positivism. The Perpetual Salesperson.

These ideas that hard work and perseverance are keys to success are incredibly difficult to dispel. Deeply rooted in assumptions about Karma (who's universal implications are in no way supported by empirical sciences) and an apocalyptic dedication to wealth (and its attendant implications). Ever read a press account of a lottery winner who didn't deserve their treasure?

We can't deal with randomness, so we tell stories to assure ourselves the world is unfolding predictably and events are knowable.

If you're struggling in this business, there must be a perfectly logical reason - so goes the thinking. The laziest assumptions will invoke characteristic traits of salespeople, and your lack of them (read: you're not nice.)

And that's really our central tension as artists right now, isn't it? How can I be genuine - how can I speak truth - when I'm constrained by a set of professional obligations to "lie with a smile?" How else can you explain the prevalence of MLM scams - arrangements who's central tenet is you never talk about being in on a scam (It's not a pyramid - it's geometric growth!)?

I want to tell you that ten thousand hours is enough, but we all know of someone that did it in two.

I want to tell you that your perseverance and dedication and endless nights of invisible work will count for something, but we all know there's a cute kid on YouTube who's going to be far more compelling for reasons you don't want to be honest about.

I want to tell you the cream (you) will rise, but the best I can tell you is it could, under the right circumstances.

I want to tell you the only thing between you and your destiny is you, but the truth is, blaming yourself is the easy way out. It's much harder to deal with randomness.

We are all trying to carve a life out of the dust right now, but we need to step back and realize there's a larger context here - a set of extenuating circumstances that are deep, systemic, and nearly invisible - an economic crash of global proportions, a real unemployment rate in the mid twenty percent, climate-induced political unrest and migrations, growing population of working homeless, etc - and we want someone to care about our music?

You could be doing everything right - and still nobody will come to your shows. It sounds so counter intuitive, I know, but it's real. You can be an abusive spouse or a child molester and sell out arenas.

Here's your big insight: It's not up to you. The Universe plays a huge part, and if it shows up late or not at all, its not your fault.

The best you can do is your best.

The Ad Bubble Has Popped

Just some thinking and brain dumping. This will be thin on supporting data.

Facebook is over. And this has serious implications for musicians trying to get noticed.

Facebook (and you may as well assume Google, too) is supported almost entirely by advertising income.

Ask yourself: What was the last Facebook/Google advert you clicked on much less actually bought something?

I already know the answer: Zero.

This is Facebook's dirtiest secret: For all the immense mining of our most intimate data, Facebook *cannot* place a relevant or meaningful advert in our faces, if we see it at all.

Despite "knowing" almost everything, Facebook knows nothing. 

This is not entirely Facebook's fault, as the majority of ad buyers are actually criminal organizations (seeking to sell illegal pharmaceuticals, or using the adverts themselves as a hack method (see: Flash exploits.)) But it is the reality we both inhabit: ads are useless and criminal. This is unsound footing upon which to build the world's premiere social networking site.

The Ad Bubble has popped.

What's Facebook to do? Start charging? Would you pay $49 a year for Facebook? Would you pay *anything* for Facebook?

WHY?

Answer: To manage social capital.

Here's the challenge: Social capital is connected to the scale of the userbase. If FB's users leave (as they already are), there's less opportunity to build/manage social capital (read: people knowing AND giving a shit about you/what you're selling.) Get a job via LinkedIn lately? (Answer: No.)

I don't think there will be "another Facebook." Social capital has been scaled out and it's tangible utility has been realized as near-futile. Cohesive social groups (tribes!) have thousands of options for online services already - they don't need another one. The appeal of Facebook for social capitalists was the huge userbase, but as the number of active users dwindles, there's less capital to go around.

That is a classic bubble pop.

The good news is musicians can stop wasting time on Facebook and start wasting more time practicing.  The bad news is people are saturated with requests for their time. This can be a blessing or a curse: it means they only trust their closest friends (blessing) but it takes forever to get credibility (curse.) Can you hold out long enough?

Comments are currently open.